Re: #include ap_EditMethods.cpp


Subject: Re: #include ap_EditMethods.cpp
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 03:45:25 CST


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Paul Rohr wrote:

> At 12:41 AM 1/20/00 -0600, sam th wrote:
> >The reason that I wanted to use error codes is that they fit better into
> >overall error handling. There are several reasons for this. first, there
> >are more error codes than just in file i/o, which is all that there are
> >IEStatus codes for. (There aren't even enough status codes for all the
> >i/o errors.) Second, using errorcodes allows for a function that has some
> >calls returning IEStatus, and some returning errorcodes. I think that
> >both of the functions I've worked with that used IEStatus have been like
> >this. In short, IEStatus just is not as flexible as UT_ErrorCode.
> >Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I did not create error codes, even
> >though I have written most of the code that handles them (I think). There
> >were already two defined when I started about 10 days ago.
>
> Yep. Sounds like UT_Error is a superset of IEStatus. If so, why not just
> nuke IEStatus in favor of UT_Error?
>
> >I used lower case because the creator of UT_ErrorCode had. If that should
> >change, I could do that fairly easily.
>
> Thanks. Please do.
>
> Paul
>
 
On further consideration, I think that removing IEStatus entirely would be
a bad idea.
1 Not to sound like a lazy programmer, but it is used in 41 files in
probably 80 functions.
2 Most importantly, IEStatus variables are used to maintain the
internal state of some of the classes, and I don't like the idea of using
error codes for this.
Thus, I thnik we should continue to use both, at least until something
better comes along.
If you violently dissagree, I am open-minded

           
                                     sam th
                                     sytobinh@uchicago.edu
                                        
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE4htk3t+kM0Mq9M/wRAsBLAJoCY4goGThxZ8dr7HoblE+xHqJFpQCg1gel
tT0NwJeUMIcbWeYWn8NdI1c=
=MbDP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jan 20 2000 - 03:45:18 CST